Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez on Monday appeared headed for a personal political defeat at the hands of US-backed Guatemala in his long-held goal to win a temporary seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Guatemala, which has never before held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, beat Venezuela by 109 votes to 76 in a first round of voting at the General Assembly, and extended its lead to 114 votes versus 74 in the second round, and 116-70 in the third.

But in a fourth vote, Guatemala slipped back to 110 votes, while Venezuela rose back up to 75. Further rounds of voting were postponed until the afternoon.

While Guatemala had not yet garnered the two-thirds of votes it needed to win, as of Monday mid-day in New York, its larger-than-expected lead was a serious blow to the Venezuelan government.

Mr Chávez has travelled the world in recent months on a personal lobbying mission to persuade dozens of foreign leaders and governments to back his bid to win one of the two Council seats open to a Latin American nation.

But the Chávez government&#8217;s early defeat at the UN comes only six weeks ahead of December&#8217;s elections in Venezuela, in which Mr Chávez&#8217;s chances of winning re-election are narrowing, according to recent opinion polls.

Candidates backed by Venezuela in this year&#8217;s presidential elections in Peru and Mexico also lost, while Rafael Correa, the pro-Chávez candidate in Ecuador&#8217;s elections last Sunday, was forced into a second round of voting.

At the UN, if Guatemala failed to win a two-thirds majority there was a chance that a third, compromise candidate, such as Uruguay, could emerge.

Meanwhile, Indonesia, South Africa, Italy and Belgium all secured seats in the first round.

The only other contested race was Indonesia versus Nepal, with Jakarta winning 158 in favour, out of 192 countries. South Korea withdrew earlier in the race, when Ban Ki-moon, its foreign minister, emerged as the leading, and ultimately successful, candidate to become the next Secretary-General.

The new members will replace Argentina, Japan, Denmark, Greece and Tanzania, which complete their two-year terms at the end of the year. The UN Security Council has fifteen members, five of which are permanent, and ten of which serve two-year terms, alternating in groups of five.

The Republic of Congo, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia will serve for another year.

Mr Chavez&#8217; bid appears to have suffered from a controversial speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he called George Bush, the US President, the devil.

While most important Security Council decisions are dominated by the permanent five, veto-wielding members &#8211; the US, UK, France, China and Russia &#8211; any agreement needs at least 9 votes in favour, and politically a consensus is desirable.

The temporary members emerged as an important constituency in the debate over how to handle Iraq in 2003, and they have significant opportunity to disrupt proceedings.

Among the non-permanent members losing UNSC seats due to term limitation there are two consistent US allies: Japan and Denmark. Among the non-permanent members gaining seats only one is a consistent US ally: Italy. Thus the new composition of the UNSC will be more difficult for the US.

Among the non-permanent members losing UNSC seats due to term limitation there are two consistent US allies: Japan and Denmark. Among the non-permanent members gaining seats only one is a consistent US ally: Italy. Thus the new composition of the UNSC will be more difficult for the US.

Click to expand...

All this intrigue and for WHAT exactly? The UN won't be worth a damn next year any more than it was last year.

This Goddam Chavez SOB is about 3rd on my list
of world leaders who I would like to see dead.

Kim Jong-il and Whosywhatsy Ahmadinejad are not
that far ahead of him. Maybe the CIA-NSA boys can
work out a good old fashioned coup. Can't happen
soon enough for me.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!
Akshay

Click to expand...

Unless war has been declared, it is against US law to assassinate a representative of a foreign government. The CIA used to engage in such practices, but that was more than 40 years ago. Does the CIA perform secret assassinations today? Does it use proxies? Probably not, but there is nothing published on this topic.

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!

Akshay

Click to expand...

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

Click to expand...

Funny, but accurate. Aki, you might pause and be a bit more thoughtful when you argue for military action or assassination. We appreciate that you are on our side, but be more cautious when you suggest using America's military and intelligence assets.

Unless war has been declared, it is against US law to assassinate a representative of a foreign government. The CIA used to engage in such practices, but that was more than 40 years ago. Does the CIA perform secret assassinations today? Does it use proxies? Probably not, but there is nothing published on this topic.

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong.....But unfortunately N.K's ,Venezuela's, Iran 's leaders hate you guys more then other countries. And they keep bitching about you people everytime. I just responded to U.S Viking's post that IF and only IF there is direct war against these countries then if the U.S wants to avoid war..WHy not kill these leaders? And the CIA/Mossad/NSA/Delta Force are the only capable institutions to do this job. Suppose IF India had to avoid war by assassinating the Pkaistani leader then we would do it!! And I never said Americans to go about killing the evil in this world. Right now the U.S is the global player of this planet. I am not saying that you guys go into action when everytime a Third World Govt screws up or something..I was just giving my opinions on how to tackle America's threats?? Do you have an alternative solution??

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!